This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
THere's more protesting about the Rannoch Moor windfarm proposal in Grough - http://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2015/04/30/outlander-tv-author-diana-gabal...
Seems crazy to me that Scottish gov could consider desecrating this moor and its glorious views with concrete towers.
Post edited at 17:05
3
1
In reply to Chris_Mellor:
There does seem to be a huge inability to appreciate the value of the landscape. In a world where the language is of economic growth, value, per capita GDP it seems a shame that the real value of the land, in so many ways, isn't adequately represented in the economic calculations.
The real value of these spaces is huge. Here's hoping windfarms now obsolete anyhow in light of today's Tesla news...
There does seem to be a huge inability to appreciate the value of the landscape. In a world where the language is of economic growth, value, per capita GDP it seems a shame that the real value of the land, in so many ways, isn't adequately represented in the economic calculations.
The real value of these spaces is huge. Here's hoping windfarms now obsolete anyhow in light of today's Tesla news...
4
In reply to Siward:
Hahahaha!!! £2000 to store about a £1 worth of energy.
I wouldn't hold your breath if I was you.
Plus the SNP's pledge to be 100% renewable by 2020, expect a lot more of wealthier land owners and turbines everywhere.
> The real value of these spaces is huge. Here's hoping windfarms now obsolete anyhow in light of today's Tesla news...
Hahahaha!!! £2000 to store about a £1 worth of energy.
I wouldn't hold your breath if I was you.
Plus the SNP's pledge to be 100% renewable by 2020, expect a lot more of wealthier land owners and turbines everywhere.
Post edited at 22:48
1
In reply to Chris_Mellor:
The Scottish government will be seen to be the real fools if they let this go ahead.It is totally inconceivable.
It would be equivalent to destroying several collections of fine art.
The Scottish government will be seen to be the real fools if they let this go ahead.It is totally inconceivable.
It would be equivalent to destroying several collections of fine art.
3
In reply to veteye:
Well they are led by brain of Britain, Nicola.... you can't interrupt me cos I'm a woman...
Well they are led by brain of Britain, Nicola.... you can't interrupt me cos I'm a woman...
3
1
In reply to Chris_Mellor:
All other things aside, you know it's not actually to be on Rannoch Moor, right?
This is a bit like the claims that pylons were to be built in "the Cairngorms", when their route infringed slightly on the outside edge of an outlying area of the Cairngorms national park.
All other things aside, you know it's not actually to be on Rannoch Moor, right?
This is a bit like the claims that pylons were to be built in "the Cairngorms", when their route infringed slightly on the outside edge of an outlying area of the Cairngorms national park.
1
1
In reply to Chris_Mellor:
Start campaigning for more nuclear fission plants then. Otherwise we are going to need about 50x more windmills "desecrating" the moorland, itself desecrated forest.
Start campaigning for more nuclear fission plants then. Otherwise we are going to need about 50x more windmills "desecrating" the moorland, itself desecrated forest.
3
In reply to wintertree:
Quite, these moors are the most awful deserts. Make the turbines in the shape of giant trees and we're all appy.
Quite, these moors are the most awful deserts. Make the turbines in the shape of giant trees and we're all appy.
In reply to Lusk:
Yes, but Tesla are simply pioneers with a corresponding price tag. Surely given sufficient progress in battery tech over time the concept of storing, on a domestic scale, household electricity from solar is a good one?
As with all things I guess one would have to factor in the carbon footprint of the batteries, which I'm going to take a wild guess is massive...
Yes, but Tesla are simply pioneers with a corresponding price tag. Surely given sufficient progress in battery tech over time the concept of storing, on a domestic scale, household electricity from solar is a good one?
As with all things I guess one would have to factor in the carbon footprint of the batteries, which I'm going to take a wild guess is massive...
In reply to Siward:
Electricity, heating and an electric car. About 25kWh/ day (how did it come to this with units?) for an average household perhaps. Solar efficiency is 22% max, effective load factor with weather is 15% perhaps (assuming that they are not solar tracking panels) so you have a 3.3% efficiency on the average 12 hours of daylight and about 1kw of sunlight per square meter gives you 0.4kWH/square meter of roof a day. Do you have 63 square meters of roof? Is it all South facing?
Don't forget California has less clouds, more sun, more consistent summer/winter sun (this is a battery for a day, not half a year) and that people tend to have bigger roofs and that there is heaps of underused scrubland calling out for solar PV.
Tesla's battery - or the deep cycle lead acids off grid places have been using for decades - does little to fix the paucity of sun and roof space on private households in the UK and does nothing to address the non-domestic energy demands.
Me, I've got a nice big roof, have a low mileage lifestyle and like a cold house. I still want my 1st world lifestyle, healthcare and infrastructure though, so as much as I detest seeing money pissed away on windmills, if we are not going massively nuclear we don't have much choice. Other than actually funding fusion research properly... To any nation not governed by simpering moronity and short termism this would be funded as THE national priority, not unlike the Manhattan project or the Apollo missions.
Electricity, heating and an electric car. About 25kWh/ day (how did it come to this with units?) for an average household perhaps. Solar efficiency is 22% max, effective load factor with weather is 15% perhaps (assuming that they are not solar tracking panels) so you have a 3.3% efficiency on the average 12 hours of daylight and about 1kw of sunlight per square meter gives you 0.4kWH/square meter of roof a day. Do you have 63 square meters of roof? Is it all South facing?
Don't forget California has less clouds, more sun, more consistent summer/winter sun (this is a battery for a day, not half a year) and that people tend to have bigger roofs and that there is heaps of underused scrubland calling out for solar PV.
Tesla's battery - or the deep cycle lead acids off grid places have been using for decades - does little to fix the paucity of sun and roof space on private households in the UK and does nothing to address the non-domestic energy demands.
Me, I've got a nice big roof, have a low mileage lifestyle and like a cold house. I still want my 1st world lifestyle, healthcare and infrastructure though, so as much as I detest seeing money pissed away on windmills, if we are not going massively nuclear we don't have much choice. Other than actually funding fusion research properly... To any nation not governed by simpering moronity and short termism this would be funded as THE national priority, not unlike the Manhattan project or the Apollo missions.
Post edited at 09:25
3
In reply to skog:
Would agree, perhaps folk who don't actually know where it's going or the details, take a look at the proposal and map, before jumping on the band wagon?
Given the average weather and the fact that people should be looking at the road, most people driving through Rannoch moor to the usual honey spots, won't ever see it.
http://www.tab-windfarm.org/our_proposals.html#
> All other things aside, you know it's not actually to be on Rannoch Moor, right?
Would agree, perhaps folk who don't actually know where it's going or the details, take a look at the proposal and map, before jumping on the band wagon?
Given the average weather and the fact that people should be looking at the road, most people driving through Rannoch moor to the usual honey spots, won't ever see it.
http://www.tab-windfarm.org/our_proposals.html#
1
In reply to wintertree:
It's a battery back up for silicon valley geeks so they can keep playing minecraft or update their social status even when the power blacks out for a few hours.
The first country to implement this will have won the power generation lottery forever, their global competitiveness in industry would be huge, just look at the boost the USA got from cheaper power through shales and fracking. It's madness not to be pushing forwards. Certainly a higher priority than landing back on the moon or going to Mars etc.
> Do you have 63 square meters of roof? Is it all South facing?
Yes, but as you say it's not common. Plus, if the UK wanted to take it seriously, planning regs should have been encouraging North / South aligned housing/roofs for the past decade. > Don't forget California has less clouds, more sun, more consistent summer/winter sun (this is a battery for a day, not half a year) and that people tend to have bigger roofs and that there is heaps of underused scrubland calling out for solar PV.
It's a battery back up for silicon valley geeks so they can keep playing minecraft or update their social status even when the power blacks out for a few hours.
> deep cycle
Exactly, deep cycle has hardly news, most people know them as leisure batteries already. > . Other than actually funding fusion research properly... To any nation not governed by simpering moronity and short termism this would be funded as THE national priority, not unlike the Manhattan project or the Apollo missions.
The first country to implement this will have won the power generation lottery forever, their global competitiveness in industry would be huge, just look at the boost the USA got from cheaper power through shales and fracking. It's madness not to be pushing forwards. Certainly a higher priority than landing back on the moon or going to Mars etc.
Post edited at 09:35
2
In reply to Chris_Mellor:
For me, the bigger issue, as others have touched on, is the complete desert that a lot of Scotland is.
For me, the bigger issue, as others have touched on, is the complete desert that a lot of Scotland is.
In reply to summo:
Looking the the proposed site in some detail I am not any the less concerned.
If anyone cares about the mountain environment being industrialised, this is a bad location...
Looking the the proposed site in some detail I am not any the less concerned.
If anyone cares about the mountain environment being industrialised, this is a bad location...
Post edited at 21:53
3
1
In reply to Siward:
Industrialised? How do you class the wholesale removal of all trees and bushes, then leaving it as a mono culture through over grazing of deer and burning for grouse etc. ?
If people were happy with more industrialised power sources nearer their homes, perhaps these things would not be needed further away?
Industrialised? How do you class the wholesale removal of all trees and bushes, then leaving it as a mono culture through over grazing of deer and burning for grouse etc. ?
If people were happy with more industrialised power sources nearer their homes, perhaps these things would not be needed further away?
4
1
In reply to summo:
Does a dislike of inappropriate windfarm development equate to an endorsement of mono cultural deer raising? I think not.
I still think that building over huge tracts of landscape and dominating the view for a much wider tract of landscape is insensitive and unnecessary. The trouble is, as I tried to say in my first post, is that such things as views and space are not given any, or any sufficient, monetary value in terms of the planners' cost/benefit analyses. But I would argue that they do have a huge value, just not one that shows up on a balance sheet.
As for power sources nearer homes, yes why not? Community energy schemes in particular ought to in the planning regs.
Does a dislike of inappropriate windfarm development equate to an endorsement of mono cultural deer raising? I think not.
I still think that building over huge tracts of landscape and dominating the view for a much wider tract of landscape is insensitive and unnecessary. The trouble is, as I tried to say in my first post, is that such things as views and space are not given any, or any sufficient, monetary value in terms of the planners' cost/benefit analyses. But I would argue that they do have a huge value, just not one that shows up on a balance sheet.
As for power sources nearer homes, yes why not? Community energy schemes in particular ought to in the planning regs.
Post edited at 11:33
3
In reply to Siward:
If you assign a numerical value to outdoor locations based on athstetics etc. I would argue that particular area would be in the lower end of the scale?
Power generations of most types has been forced out the burbs by nimbies, next the nimbies don't want it in places they holiday... Exactly where should it go?
If you assign a numerical value to outdoor locations based on athstetics etc. I would argue that particular area would be in the lower end of the scale?
Power generations of most types has been forced out the burbs by nimbies, next the nimbies don't want it in places they holiday... Exactly where should it go?
In reply to Chris_Mellor:
Where do you want the UK's power to come from?
People oppose oil/gas due to pollution
People oppose Nuclear due to 'safety' concerns
People oppose wind due to turbines being an 'eye-sore'
There isn't enough sunlight in the UK to make solar a viable option.
Tidal energy has huge upfront costs.
Do people really think that energy just appears from thin air?
It has to come from somewhere...
Where do you want the UK's power to come from?
People oppose oil/gas due to pollution
People oppose Nuclear due to 'safety' concerns
People oppose wind due to turbines being an 'eye-sore'
There isn't enough sunlight in the UK to make solar a viable option.
Tidal energy has huge upfront costs.
Do people really think that energy just appears from thin air?
It has to come from somewhere...
2
In reply to Chris_Mellor:
Am I the one who thinks that wind farm is a beautiful thing to have? Of course, it ruins the landscape, but when you think about it, it's a smart way to use the natural resources without harming the nature in a long term. Although they don't look like as cool as windmills, they do provide electricity to our homes.
Maybe I am biased, but after meeting people who worked after the Chernobyl's disaster, I would rather see wind farms everywhere rather than couple of nuclear power stations in a country. The last time I researched about nuclear waste, there was also no long-term solution how to store it.
Am I the one who thinks that wind farm is a beautiful thing to have? Of course, it ruins the landscape, but when you think about it, it's a smart way to use the natural resources without harming the nature in a long term. Although they don't look like as cool as windmills, they do provide electricity to our homes.
Maybe I am biased, but after meeting people who worked after the Chernobyl's disaster, I would rather see wind farms everywhere rather than couple of nuclear power stations in a country. The last time I researched about nuclear waste, there was also no long-term solution how to store it.
1
In reply to PPP:
I'm genuinely ambivalent about the spread of wind farms, I do know that we need to harness clean energy, but I don't like to see them developed solely mostly into areas where the population density is low. They are steadily encroaching closer and closer into the beautiful Moffat & Tweedsmuir Hills that I love very much and which are a key draw for the tourists that prop up our local economy. At a last rough count, there were around 600 turbines within a 15 mile radius of where I live and a further few hundred in the planning and application stages. It's also just been revealed that the Duke of Buccleugh is lobbying for a further 140, strangely, not in the lovely hills surrounding his castle, but in the Lowther Hills 10 miles to its east.
Also, one of the key selling points at the application stage is their benefit to the local community, so I'd like to see the bounty shared more evenly across Scotland, perhaps with a couple of hundred or so across the windy Pentland Hills just to the south west of Edinburgh, and a few on Arthur's seat for example so as the people of the city can enjoy the riches too.
> Am I the one who thinks that wind farm is a beautiful thing to have? Of course, it ruins the landscape, but when you think about it, it's a smart way to use the natural resources without harming the nature in a long term. Although they don't look like as cool as windmills, they do provide electricity to our homes. <
I'm genuinely ambivalent about the spread of wind farms, I do know that we need to harness clean energy, but I don't like to see them developed solely mostly into areas where the population density is low. They are steadily encroaching closer and closer into the beautiful Moffat & Tweedsmuir Hills that I love very much and which are a key draw for the tourists that prop up our local economy. At a last rough count, there were around 600 turbines within a 15 mile radius of where I live and a further few hundred in the planning and application stages. It's also just been revealed that the Duke of Buccleugh is lobbying for a further 140, strangely, not in the lovely hills surrounding his castle, but in the Lowther Hills 10 miles to its east.
Also, one of the key selling points at the application stage is their benefit to the local community, so I'd like to see the bounty shared more evenly across Scotland, perhaps with a couple of hundred or so across the windy Pentland Hills just to the south west of Edinburgh, and a few on Arthur's seat for example so as the people of the city can enjoy the riches too.
Post edited at 16:34
In reply to PPP:
I agree with you. A breezy day and the windmills are churning out half as much power as our whole nuclear industry: http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
More amazingly, they even work at night when no-one can see them!
Chris
> Am I the one who thinks that wind farm is a beautiful thing to have? Of course, it ruins the landscape, but when you think about it, it's a smart way to use the natural resources without harming the nature in a long term. Although they don't look like as cool as windmills, they do provide electricity to our homes.
> Maybe I am biased, but after meeting people who worked after the Chernobyl's disaster, I would rather see wind farms everywhere rather than couple of nuclear power stations in a country. The last time I researched about nuclear waste, there was also no long-term solution how to store it.
I agree with you. A breezy day and the windmills are churning out half as much power as our whole nuclear industry: http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
More amazingly, they even work at night when no-one can see them!
Chris
Post edited at 16:27
1
In reply to moffatross:
Can I ask you a question? Would you rather see a thousand turbines or just one nuclear power station through your house window? http://www.pennenergy.com/content/dam/etc/medialib/platform-7/pennenergy/ar...
I have heard a story where people were complaining about a mobile network tower being put on a school as "it is dangerous for our health". Once it was removed, they asked to bring it back as there was no phone signal! I can't link any articles regarding to this though as I was told this by my sister who doesn't live in the UK.
My point is that no matter what, it is impossible to place a nuclear power station somewhere away from everyone, so it must appear somewhere near cities or we would have to establish a new town for people who would work at that nuclear station (that happened in history). Given that most population of Scotland is in S/SE Scotland, someone will not be happy about this anyway.
I can see quite many wind turbines from where I live (West End of Glasgow, but I live on a hill in top floor). I never thought they are unattractive...
Can I ask you a question? Would you rather see a thousand turbines or just one nuclear power station through your house window? http://www.pennenergy.com/content/dam/etc/medialib/platform-7/pennenergy/ar...
I have heard a story where people were complaining about a mobile network tower being put on a school as "it is dangerous for our health". Once it was removed, they asked to bring it back as there was no phone signal! I can't link any articles regarding to this though as I was told this by my sister who doesn't live in the UK.
My point is that no matter what, it is impossible to place a nuclear power station somewhere away from everyone, so it must appear somewhere near cities or we would have to establish a new town for people who would work at that nuclear station (that happened in history). Given that most population of Scotland is in S/SE Scotland, someone will not be happy about this anyway.
I can see quite many wind turbines from where I live (West End of Glasgow, but I live on a hill in top floor). I never thought they are unattractive...
In reply to PPP:
Go away and do some reading, and then present the class with a 500 word synopsis as to why Chernobyl is in no way relevant to nuclear power in the UK. It'll save me regurgitating the same old comments.
There are - and have been for a long time - plans for geological era storage. There is also the possibility of transmutation in the medium future. As for waste that can't be stored, just imagine if nuclear waste was spewed out of your car, was responsible for 7,000,000 early deaths a year, and was causing irreversible climate change.
Nuclear policy in the UK has zero connection to evidence, science, health or what is best. Pure fear mongering and NIMBYism.
> Maybe I am biased, but after meeting people who worked after the Chernobyl's disaster, I would rather see wind farms everywhere rather than couple of nuclear power stations in a country.
Go away and do some reading, and then present the class with a 500 word synopsis as to why Chernobyl is in no way relevant to nuclear power in the UK. It'll save me regurgitating the same old comments.
> The last time I researched about nuclear waste, there was also no long-term solution how to store it.
There are - and have been for a long time - plans for geological era storage. There is also the possibility of transmutation in the medium future. As for waste that can't be stored, just imagine if nuclear waste was spewed out of your car, was responsible for 7,000,000 early deaths a year, and was causing irreversible climate change.
Nuclear policy in the UK has zero connection to evidence, science, health or what is best. Pure fear mongering and NIMBYism.
Post edited at 16:49
6
In reply to blue_sundown:
I live roughly inline with the very top of Scotland and solar pv/water works fine here, in fact in summer its awesome. With modest grants at installation and zero feed in tariff its still viable. You need to consider winter source or simply over scale it to meet your summer demand, which then gets closer to winter needs.
Tidal or wave, UK is leading the way, there are multiple trials off Scotland now, small scale private and big multinationals with public funding.. but it needs more money for research.
> Where do you want the UK's power to come from
> There isn't enough sunlight in the UK to make solar a viable
I live roughly inline with the very top of Scotland and solar pv/water works fine here, in fact in summer its awesome. With modest grants at installation and zero feed in tariff its still viable. You need to consider winter source or simply over scale it to meet your summer demand, which then gets closer to winter needs.
Tidal or wave, UK is leading the way, there are multiple trials off Scotland now, small scale private and big multinationals with public funding.. but it needs more money for research.
1
In reply to PPP: > "Given that most population of Scotland is in S/SE Scotland, someone will not be happy about this anyway. I can see quite many wind turbines from where I live (West End of Glasgow, but I live on a hill in top floor). I never thought they are unattractive..." <
That's factually incorrect. Most of the population of Scotland is in the Central Belt (where you live) and where there are plenty of jobs outwith hospitality and farming. If you look at the population density of Dumfries, Galloway, rural South Lanarkshire and the large land area they encompass, it's not dissimilar to much of the Highlands, but we don't have HIE etc to help us out and we really, really do rely on tourism just now.
Regarding your question, I just don't know. We had the worse than useless Chapelcross fast breeder reactor a few miles south which many local people wanted to see redeveloped into a modern energy producing plant rather than a bomb fuel plant. More widely, I see fission as a stepping stone to fusion, I view nuclear power objectors as being in the same camp as your anecdotal objector to radio masts (and the parent at our local academy to tried to get the school's wi-fi network removed for similar reasons). Mostly they're older generation, conservative (small c) folk with an irrational fear of 'Science & Technology'.
That's factually incorrect. Most of the population of Scotland is in the Central Belt (where you live) and where there are plenty of jobs outwith hospitality and farming. If you look at the population density of Dumfries, Galloway, rural South Lanarkshire and the large land area they encompass, it's not dissimilar to much of the Highlands, but we don't have HIE etc to help us out and we really, really do rely on tourism just now.
Regarding your question, I just don't know. We had the worse than useless Chapelcross fast breeder reactor a few miles south which many local people wanted to see redeveloped into a modern energy producing plant rather than a bomb fuel plant. More widely, I see fission as a stepping stone to fusion, I view nuclear power objectors as being in the same camp as your anecdotal objector to radio masts (and the parent at our local academy to tried to get the school's wi-fi network removed for similar reasons). Mostly they're older generation, conservative (small c) folk with an irrational fear of 'Science & Technology'.
3
In reply to moffatross:
If you believe the WHO figure of 4000 deaths from Chernobyl (and ignore Fukushima for now), nuclear has a better safety record than solar or wind power. More people die per TWhr (the relevant comparison) from just about every source of power than nuclear. If you increase the number a bit (to a more reasonable few tens of thousands) then solar/wind/nuclear become more comparable. It is also interesting that people always remember Chernobyl but have probably never heard of the Banqiao dam failure which killed 171,000 people and lost 11 million people their homes - hydro has (including this disaster) a much worse safety record but we don't see the same kind of protests against dams (you do get some, it is true, but usually more local).
Everything pales in comparison to coal, of course, which kills something like a hundred as many people (world average - less in the west), and releases far more radioactivity into the air (from coal) than nuclear power does... coal power plants kill every day.
Back to the point - wind/solar/hydro are not necessarily safer than nuclear, and given modern reactors are probably less safe!
If you believe the WHO figure of 4000 deaths from Chernobyl (and ignore Fukushima for now), nuclear has a better safety record than solar or wind power. More people die per TWhr (the relevant comparison) from just about every source of power than nuclear. If you increase the number a bit (to a more reasonable few tens of thousands) then solar/wind/nuclear become more comparable. It is also interesting that people always remember Chernobyl but have probably never heard of the Banqiao dam failure which killed 171,000 people and lost 11 million people their homes - hydro has (including this disaster) a much worse safety record but we don't see the same kind of protests against dams (you do get some, it is true, but usually more local).
Everything pales in comparison to coal, of course, which kills something like a hundred as many people (world average - less in the west), and releases far more radioactivity into the air (from coal) than nuclear power does... coal power plants kill every day.
Back to the point - wind/solar/hydro are not necessarily safer than nuclear, and given modern reactors are probably less safe!
Post edited at 18:14
8
In reply to Chris_Mellor:
It's a somewhat unorthodox viewpoint, but I've thought of space as being a suitable place to put nuclear waste, being the most horrendously radioactive environment. Just the minor issue of getting it all up there...
It's a somewhat unorthodox viewpoint, but I've thought of space as being a suitable place to put nuclear waste, being the most horrendously radioactive environment. Just the minor issue of getting it all up there...
In reply to andrewmcleod:
I completely agree.
Nuclear has been used as a scapegoat by the media for too long and ironically enough, it's at the expense of the environment and the public's health.
IMO nuclear power (assuming fusion isn't viable) is the mid term solution to a long term problem. Renewables are the long term solution, however the capacity, efficiency, technology and infrastructure aren't there yet for it to be the UK's primary energy source for a considerable number of years.
Handy radiation chart:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/blag/radiation.png
I completely agree.
Nuclear has been used as a scapegoat by the media for too long and ironically enough, it's at the expense of the environment and the public's health.
IMO nuclear power (assuming fusion isn't viable) is the mid term solution to a long term problem. Renewables are the long term solution, however the capacity, efficiency, technology and infrastructure aren't there yet for it to be the UK's primary energy source for a considerable number of years.
Handy radiation chart:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/blag/radiation.png
3
In reply to Chris_Mellor:
There are two issues about this that concern me:
1) it's not on Rannoch Moor. Your post is incorrect.
2) The bigger issue in my view - Landowners are the only ones who could stop this outright but never, not even once, get named by those in opposition to wind farms or other developments. The battle is being lost by the failed tactics adopted to only attack the developers who are better prepared, better resourced and have already worked out a plan to counter any of the attacks by those against wind farms in this area.
This is a conscious decision by the MCofS etc to not name the landowners who are behind all this. There is no examination of the tax affairs of Adrianus JM van Well, Maria FB van as-van Well and Cornelius SC van Well for example. No effort is made to name and shame them.
We have the access laws, time to start targeting these indivuduals.
There are two issues about this that concern me:
1) it's not on Rannoch Moor. Your post is incorrect.
2) The bigger issue in my view - Landowners are the only ones who could stop this outright but never, not even once, get named by those in opposition to wind farms or other developments. The battle is being lost by the failed tactics adopted to only attack the developers who are better prepared, better resourced and have already worked out a plan to counter any of the attacks by those against wind farms in this area.
This is a conscious decision by the MCofS etc to not name the landowners who are behind all this. There is no examination of the tax affairs of Adrianus JM van Well, Maria FB van as-van Well and Cornelius SC van Well for example. No effort is made to name and shame them.
We have the access laws, time to start targeting these indivuduals.
In reply to summo:
>"I live roughly inline with the very top of Scotland and solar pv/water works fine here, in fact in summer its awesome."<
Not sure how closely the Stockholm data relates to where you live, but Scotland has significantly fewer hours of sunshine, even in Edinburgh, one of its sunniest places. In summertime, roughly 1/2 the hours ... http://svemet.org/stocompare.htm
>"I live roughly inline with the very top of Scotland and solar pv/water works fine here, in fact in summer its awesome."<
Not sure how closely the Stockholm data relates to where you live, but Scotland has significantly fewer hours of sunshine, even in Edinburgh, one of its sunniest places. In summertime, roughly 1/2 the hours ... http://svemet.org/stocompare.htm
Post edited at 20:39
In reply to kwoods:
logically yes, but so far we have yet to master getting a rocket into space with 99.9% chance of success, plenty have blown up within minutes of take off in the past few years.
> It's a somewhat unorthodox viewpoint, but I've thought of space as being a suitable place to put nuclear waste, being the most horrendously radioactive environment. Just the minor issue of getting it all up there...
logically yes, but so far we have yet to master getting a rocket into space with 99.9% chance of success, plenty have blown up within minutes of take off in the past few years.
In reply to moffatross:
I will agree you probably have a cloud issue especially on the west, but it's certainly not a problem being so far north. But, what you do have is wind in abundance! Which brings us back to the same problem on this thread. Wind, solar and tidal in the right ratios must be able to power Scotland or even the UK. Edinburgh does better than Stockholm in peak winter, which it would of course be, because the sun is so low it's pretty worthless in Dec/Jan. Logic would say tidal in the best races etc. Wind on the higher ground and solar further south in the UK, would produce a balance grid. Add in micro hydro schemes, some geo thermal... the UK could have a very sustainable balance grid. But, it needs money and a nuclear base to maintain some stability.
But it's also UK construction standards and heating systems. Low levels of insulation are the norm, individual gas boilers for every house etc.. If anyone rebuilds, renovates or builds from scratch here, it's max insulation on a scale that would amaze most UK builders, ground or air sourced, heat exchangers, or communal heating systems etc.. the kind of house that kevin mcloud would feature in the UK, because they are so ground breaking (there was a repeat from 2013/14 a few weeks ago here of a level 5 eco house he did in the UK, which would be standard practice here). If UK houses were more efficient you wouldn't need to so many panels etc. on your own roof to meet your needs.
> Not sure how closely the Stockholm data relates to where you live, but Scotland has significantly fewer hours of sunshine, even in Edinburgh, one of its sunniest places. In summertime, roughly 1/2 the hours ... http://svemet.org/stocompare.htm
I will agree you probably have a cloud issue especially on the west, but it's certainly not a problem being so far north. But, what you do have is wind in abundance! Which brings us back to the same problem on this thread. Wind, solar and tidal in the right ratios must be able to power Scotland or even the UK. Edinburgh does better than Stockholm in peak winter, which it would of course be, because the sun is so low it's pretty worthless in Dec/Jan. Logic would say tidal in the best races etc. Wind on the higher ground and solar further south in the UK, would produce a balance grid. Add in micro hydro schemes, some geo thermal... the UK could have a very sustainable balance grid. But, it needs money and a nuclear base to maintain some stability.
But it's also UK construction standards and heating systems. Low levels of insulation are the norm, individual gas boilers for every house etc.. If anyone rebuilds, renovates or builds from scratch here, it's max insulation on a scale that would amaze most UK builders, ground or air sourced, heat exchangers, or communal heating systems etc.. the kind of house that kevin mcloud would feature in the UK, because they are so ground breaking (there was a repeat from 2013/14 a few weeks ago here of a level 5 eco house he did in the UK, which would be standard practice here). If UK houses were more efficient you wouldn't need to so many panels etc. on your own roof to meet your needs.
Post edited at 07:33
1
In reply to blue_sundown:
In the case of wind power...
> Do people really think that energy just appears from thin air?
In the case of wind power...
1
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...